Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Nhs Desk Worker Gets £37K Porsche Boxster Sports Car Funded By The Taxpayer


Recommended Posts

just becasue it isn't classified as management spending in the HR database does not mean it is not management spending - all sorts of other ways of accounting, indirectly, for empire-building avarice

I remember thinking that when I read one of the articles.. they reckoned only 3% of the NHS is made up of management.

When was the last time you saw a doctors surgery with 33 nurses for every practice manager / GP.

I can't believe in a hospital there is only one senior nurse/matron to manage every 33 regular nurses. It seems in the NHS you are only a manager if you have no clinical role what-so-ever.. but again perhaps Timak can correct me?

Edit to add (basic) NHS nursing Hierarchy:

Modern Matrons

Clinical Nurse Manager/ Nurse Lead

Senior Sister; Charge Nurse; Senior Ward Manager

Sister/Charge Nurse; Ward Manager

Junior/Deputy Sister; Charge Nurse; Ward Manager

Senior staff nurses

Staff Nurses

Healthcare Assistants

8 Tiers in the hierarchy and less than 3% management? Do me a lemon.. :rolleyes:

Edited by libspero
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you have first hand knowledge of how NHS funding is being distributed, and given that the budget has doubled in ten years.. could you shed some light on where this money is going?

I only see very limited datasets so I can only guess really but I started doing this in about 2006 and haven't really seen any differences in head counts in places that already existed. The stats are about 1 "manager" for every 30 staff members but defining what is a manager is pretty much open to interpretation.

All I would say is that clinical staff are forever requesting additional non-clinical staff to be employed to reduce their time away from patients and when these "back office" staff are taken away the paperwork still needs to be done.

I'm always arguing for a more centralised IT system "toolkit" within the NHS as I feel there is a lot of wasted effort in procuring systems and that big savings could be made here but others argue equally passionately that this stifles local solutions.

Either way the NHS is pretty efficient when compared to other health systems even if not as efficient as it could be if properly overseen and opened up to the opensource community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of people get either a company car or a car allowance. If you take the latter you are free to spend it on whatever car you choose, and if that car is more than the allowance you canchoose to add to it from the rest of your income.

If it's a fleet car bought by the tax payer, that's different, but the article suggests otherwise.

I'm all for getting rid of public sector waste, starting with the pensions, but this is sensationalist tripe

these are RENTALS, by the Authority. States it in the text.

NOT a car allowance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only see very limited datasets so I can only guess really but I started doing this in about 2006 and haven't really seen any differences in head counts in places that already existed.

if you have only seen things sinde the peak of new labour public sector bloated spending, then you can hardly make a useful comparison, since you have not seen the 'before' case

Either way the NHS is pretty efficient when compared to other health systems even if not as efficient as it could be if properly overseen and opened up to the opensource community.

'other health systems' meaning whom? and on what measure?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you have only seen things sinde the peak of new labour public sector bloated spending, then you can hardly make a useful comparison, since you have not seen the 'before' case

'other health systems' meaning whom? and on what measure?

The article said that management had increased 50% since 2007, that was what I was disputing.

Other health systems meaning all types of combinations of insurance / contribution based / fixed tariff practised all around the world. As far as I am aware no health system performs significantly better than the NHS for less money per head of population.

Edited by Timak
Link to post
Share on other sites

The article said that management had increased 50% since 2007, that was what I was disputing.

Other health systems meaning all types of combinations of insurance / contribution based / fixed tariff practised all around the world. As far as I am aware no health system performs significantly better than the NHS for less money per head of population.

that may be so, but inefficiency elsewhere doesnt excuse it here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The article said that management had increased 50% since 2007, that was what I was disputing.

fair enough

Other health systems meaning all types of combinations of insurance / contribution based / fixed tariff practised all around the world. As far as I am aware no health system performs significantly better than the NHS for less money per head of population.

I am not sure that the statistics about this are not based from years prior to 2006, collated over some years - I have seen figures which suggest that NHS has similar cost/head to other health systems, for a given level of clinical outcome, but in related articles concerns were raised about the DIRECTION of (in)efficiency and staff costs in the NHS, diverging from comparison health systems from the 2000s on

Link to post
Share on other sites

Porsche Cockster?!

I'd imagine it won't be diesel, so very high CO2.

One of my colleagues was looking into one of these rental schemes (not much better than going private imo) and got refused a 1.8L Petrol Mazda as the CO2 was too high and out of criteria.

Schemes my differ of course, but this doesn't add up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if they get £4,500 per annum car allowance that's less than you would get in a lot of private sector jobs.

Private sector and public sector are fundamentally different and it isn't word play but it is serious.

If you don't like what a private company is doing then don't buy their products, work for them, invest in them, or whatever and let them make their own mistakes if that's what you think they are doing. Public sector just isn't like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Off topic. The family member of an acquantance commited suicide recently. He was unemployed, so the council paid for the funeral and the reception. There were over 150 mourners. Instead of some working mens club, it was held at a nice hotel. The family member told me that they were able to choose the top of the range casket, and the council didnt bat an eyelid.They paid for it all. It was tragic as he was a young man. But it was surprising to me that the council would cover the cost.

They were talking shite, you get a plywood coffin and a space in the ground. No free cup of tea.

e.g. http://www.coventry.gov.uk/info/331/funeral-cost_information/519/help_with_funeral_expenses/4

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure that the statistics about this are not based from years prior to 2006, collated over some years - I have seen figures which suggest that NHS has similar cost/head to other health systems, for a given level of clinical outcome, but in related articles concerns were raised about the DIRECTION of (in)efficiency and staff costs in the NHS, diverging from comparison health systems from the 2000s on

There is no doubt Labour spent a heck of a lot on healthcare but on taking office our health outcomes were a lot worse than OECD average based on a much lower spend than average. We now spend about the average and our health outcomes are average. Incidentally our spending includes a lot of primary research which other countries do not do so on a clinical basis only we are still below average. This primary research means we still have a decent pharma industry so I see it as an investment rather than as a cost.

There are diminishing returns in health spending - getting your cancer survival rate up from 0% to 30% by introducing an early detection screening campaign might be relatively easy but getting it to 31% by working out how to treat established cancers might cost twice as much again.

Health economics is a quite interesting - lots of moral dilemmas about spreading the risk and what should and shouldn't be covered by schemes. How much resource should be put into achieving extra life and what quality will that life be etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Health economics is a quite interesting - lots of moral dilemmas about spreading the risk and what should and shouldn't be covered by schemes. How much resource should be put into achieving extra life and what quality will that life be etc

I am certain it is - strikes me as a necessary extension of triage!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.